Who pays for lawsuits

[Big Fin]

Just read this on the Outdoor Wire this morning. Very interesting.

Who Pays For Lawsuits?

Two Studies Show Environmental Lawsuits Paid For By Program For Seniors, Veterans, and Small Business - Government Not Accounting for Costs

MISSOULA, Montana -- Studies released independently by Notre Dame Law School and the Government Accountability Office show that environmental groups pad their claims for reimbursed legal fees using a social program entitled the Equal Access to Justice Act, and the U.S. is not keeping track of expenditures.

A Notre Dame law review article shows that a 1980 law intended for seniors, veterans, and small businesses is utilized by environmental groups to get pay-backs for their lawsuits as well. A GAO study shows that no one really knows how much money has been spent, but the amounts are at least several million dollars a year.

See the Notre Dame Law School study at the link below:

http://www.boone-crockett.org/images/editor/ND_EAJA.pdf

See the GAO study at the link below:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-417R

"This study made me a strong supporter of the Equal Access to Justice Act for its intended beneficiaries," said Lowell E. Baier, the author of the law review article and President Emeritus of the Boone and Crockett Club. "This law is for seniors, veterans, and small businesses that have trouble getting their legal fees reimbursed, yet many environmental lawsuits are reimbursed without ever showing a violation of environmental law. Environmental law is clear about which lawsuits should be repaid under environmental statutes; we should stick to that clear direction and follow the intent of Congress."

"Litigation has become a routine step in environmental policy because much of it is about lobbying against decisions and forcing do-overs," said Jennifer Ellis, President of the Western Legacy Alliance. "It's not that so many environmental policies are wrong, it's that people disagree over them. Businesses protect themselves-especially against those who admit they want to destroy us-and activists try to get their way instead. Whoever files that kind of lawsuit should pay their own way."

Western Legacy Alliance and Boone and Crockett lead a coalition of over 100 groups that together both support H.R. 1996, the Government Litigation Savings Act, which will reform the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act.

The bill improves legal fee reimbursements to seniors, veterans, and small businesses, enforces attorney fee reimbursement under environmental law, and requires full accounting of payments authorized by the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The GAO report confirms the obvious need to resume accounting, which stopped in 1995.

• GAO asked 75 bureaus and agencies at USDA and the Department of Interior for records on payments, but only 10 of these 75 could provide data on cases and attorney fee reimbursements. Even the records provided were incomplete and unreliable, based on manual calculations from older files, and the memory of career employees. Moreover, some records may overlap, so GAO is not even certain of their totals.

• Even these sparse records show that millions of dollars are going out the door. GAO identified $4.4 million per year of EAJA payments to environmental groups during the period of 2000-2010 from suits against the 10 units of USDA and DOI that had any records at all.

• GAO's minimum numbers do not add up to totals available from public court records and tax returns over the same period. Public federal court records from just 13 federal courts revealed $5.2 million in legal fees per year, compared to GAO's estimate of $4.4 million, as tabulated by legal staff for the Western Legacy Alliance. A broader analysis including additional federal court records and public tax returns from just 20 environmental organizations showed $9.1 million reimbursed during FY2010 alone, as demonstrated by attorneys for the Boone and Crockett Club.

"Clearly, the more you look the more money you find," said Baier.

Ellis said, "There are two problems here: getting the money to the right people for the right reasons, and keeping track of the money."

The House-Senate request for this GAO report is the 10th Congressional directive or proposal introduced since 2010 on EAJA payments. Some of these measures address only accounting for funds HR 1996 as reported from the House Judiciary Committee is now the latest most comprehensive proposal on both use of and accounting for EAJA payments.

 

[Papa-Zulu]

Radical environmental groups have been using EAJA for years in frivilous lawsuits designed to block hundreds of projects. The Act is a travesty and ought to be repealed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Radical environmental groups have been using EAJA for years in frivilous lawsuits designed to block hundreds of projects.

Yes.

The Act is a travesty and ought to be repealed.

No.

EAJA is a powerful tool in ensuring that Americans can seek redress against their government and not lose their house, savings or farm.

There was mandatory reporting from EAJA until 1995, when then Speaker Newt Gingrich, as part of his contract on America, forced through the Paperwork Reduction Act and President Clinton signed it.

Groups only get money when they win. In order to win, the Federal Government has to be non-compliant with their own regulations. Their regulations are written by special interest groups and Bureaucrats. Overlapping rules and regulation and legislation make compliance by Federal Agencies almost impossible, so the extremist groups like Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Center for Biological Diversity can sue and stop good projects.

We don't need to get rid of EAJA, we need to rewrite how we engage in public land management. We'll see if the new rules for the Forest Service help with that.

Legislation like Forest Jobs and Recreation would also help eliminate these frivolous lawsuits, which is these same extremist groups are fighting it.

In this day and age, the last thing that the American people should be doing is giving up their right to fight the Federal Government. Eliminating EAJA does just that.

 

[bjtc_brian]

Boone And Crockett did a very good episode on this on one of the outdoor channels. I think it is a travesty that there is absolutely no way to track where/how much money is being spent on this. EAJA does need some re-working, as there is no penalty for frivolous lawsuits. As soon as anything happens, anyone can start a lawsuit with almost no real evidence or basis.

 

[Papa-Zulu]

Ben, you make some good points. However, I think you'd agree that the Act needs to be changed in some manner. One Three Forks, MT resident, Sarah Johnson, told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that she sues over EVERY pending logging operation, and said she doesn't think ANY logging for ANY reason is justified. That is just plain nuts.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, you make some good points. However, I think you'd agree that the Act needs to be changed in some manner. One Three Forks, MT resident, Sarah Johnson, told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that she sues over EVERY pending logging operation, and said she doesn't think ANY logging for ANY reason is justified. That is just plain nuts.

I absolutely agree that we need some changes in how we manage public lands and how we use EAJA. I've not had time to delve into the GAO report, and I know that there should be another report coming out from CRS, I think.

Once we get all of the info, we need to measure twice and cut once. EAJA originally had a reporting requirement. That should come back. I'm even okay with a bonding requirement for all lawsuits brought by NGO's who meet certain tests. However, the way that Lummis' EAJA bill is currently written, groups like Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies would be exempt, and would continue to sue unabashedly because they have no money.

So then the question becomes: Do we alter EAJA, or do we alter FLMPA and NEPA processes as well as Forest Planning Rules, etc, to make it easier for the public land managers to implement their charges?

Changing EAJA is more difficult than the current bill in congress. To effectively eliminate these frivolous lawsuits, we have to change the way the US Gov't does business in terms of land management. Not sure how to get there.

 

[jryoung]

There was mandatory reporting from EAJA until 1995, when then Speaker Newt Gingrich, as part of his contract on America, forced through the Paperwork Reduction Act and President Clinton signed it.

Wait, you're saying the Newt did environmentalists a favor? You just can't help but laugh.

 

[1_pointer]

Though I know many here won't support the idea, but I believe any EAJA revision should, at some level, include language on reciprocity. I think it would cut down on the amount of frivilous appeals/lawsuits. The bond suggestion may do the same...

Some common sense, IMO, has occurred in the past few years regarding EAJA, at least for Interior. (Unless it's changed since 2009). Appeals/lawsuits on certain things are not eligible for EAJA that were. IIRC, permit renewal appeals are not eligilble for EAJA, but appealling the issuance of a new permit is.

Groups only get money when they win.

EAJA funds have been granted for both sides entering into a settlement agreement as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Though I know many here won't support the idea, but I believe any EAJA revision should, at some level, include language on reciprocity. I think it would cut down on the amount of frivilous appeals/lawsuits. The bond suggestion may do the same...

Some common sense, IMO, has occurred in the past few years regarding EAJA, at least for Interior. (Unless it's changed since 2009). Appeals/lawsuits on certain things are not eligible for EAJA that were. IIRC, permit renewal appeals are not eligilble for EAJA, but appealling the issuance of a new permit is.

EAJA funds have been granted for both sides entering into a settlement agreement as well.

I would support some kind of reciprocity or loser pays, but you have to be careful in that you don't force someone's grandmother who is fighting to get her dead husband's social security to have to bond in case she loses.

I think they were trying to get to that with the dollar figure for budgets on NGO's who sue, but it missed the mark of the real problem groups like AWR who has an annual budget lower than the mark.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Radical environmental groups have been using EAJA for years in frivilous lawsuits designed to block hundreds of projects. The Act is a travesty and ought to be repealed.

"Frivilolus" lawsuits like having the Government follow their own laws???

Yeah, wouldn't want any of that to happen.

Ben, you make some good points. However, I think you'd agree that the Act needs to be changed in some manner. One Three Forks, MT resident, Sarah Johnson, told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that she sues over EVERY pending logging operation, and said she doesn't think ANY logging for ANY reason is justified. That is just plain nuts

Just because some lady sues doesn't mean she collects any money under EAJA. Do you know if she has ever prevailed, and, did she collect any money under EAJA or are you just making shit up?